User login

Molly Ivins, 1944-2007

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."

Please help

Several things are annoying me, these days. Nothing
earth-shaking, but I can see why some people are losing online sales.

You may, or may not, agree with me. But, I know if one person is
annoyed, it's always just the tip of the iceberg.

I think most of us use the Wild, Wild Web for research these
days. Since so many sites are blog based now, I don't understand
why this is a problem.

I find dates missing from blogs and articles. I can't tell when
most of the articles were written. How current is this
information? Half the time, I can't tell.

Now, if I want that information for something I'm writing
myself, I need to know whether it's out-dated!

My next pet peeve is videos on web sites ...

On many news sites, I will watch a short video. Unfortunately,
they slam an advertisement in front of me before what I want to
see starts rolling.

I don't have the time – or the patience for that. So, I'm gone.

Now, I don't mind a short video at the top of a site that gives
me a brief blurb about what the site is all about. But, the
videos that really annoy me are where someone puts their mug on
the upper fold and proceeds to tell me ALL about what's on the
page!

These are always on sales pages. And, maybe they get a lot of
illiterate visitors. I can't think of another reason why they
would do this. It's distracting if you prefer to read the page –
which I do. Always.

I can read a whole lot faster than they can give me their verbal
sales pitch. I can listen to a radio or a television
infomercial if I want to see and/or see someone. Online, I expect
to read!

Part of the problem is so many people who make these videos
“pad” them. They'll spend the entire first third of the
presentation telling you what they are going to tell you. I've
seen this is some writing too, but it's most prevalent in
videos. The only reason I can think of that makes people think
longer is better is ... everybody's a STAR!

Don't waste my time with this! Just tell me, fer cryin' out
loud! The length of anything should be just as long as it takes
to say what you need to say. Anything else is padding,
irrelevant and annoying.

"One of the first rules most of us learn in business is to
avoid bringing up controversial subjects with co-workers,
colleagues, and customers. Especially customers."

Unfortunately, I'm often a bit lacking in good sense in this
area. However, I DO know enough to stay away from Facebook.
I know, I know, you don't agree, but I've always had a bad
feeling about where Facebook is heading.

In any event, Facebook is now "automatically publishing posts
under your name and placing them at the top of the News feed
for your friends. In some cases, these posts can include
controversial political content that you would never
voluntarily post."

The new Office is available as a cloud-based subscription service.
As subscribers, consumers automatically get future upgrades in
addition to exciting cloud services including Skype world minutes
and extra SkyDrive storage. Subscribers receive multiple installs
for everyone in the family and across their devices."

"The Internet has won the fight. SOPA and ACTA are both dead
after having been eviscerated by the combined powers of the
world coming together to fight for what they believe in – basic
digital human rights.

We can now rest easy knowing that the war has come to an end.
Politicians would never think to bring them back, even under the
guise of innocuous trade agreements and IP bills, right? Right?"

Of course, the Justices lined up along political lines! Was
anyone really naïve enough to believe this wouldn't be the
outcome? Except Chief Justice, John Roberts.

They (the media) just can't stop talking, and speculating, about
his opinion – which decided the outcome. Yet, nowhere, so far,
have I heard what is so obvious to me.

As things stand, and before ObamaCare ever existed, folks are
required to join Medicare at age 65 unless they have other "qualified" insurance (Again, a requirement!). If someone has decided not
to collect their Social Security until age 70, it doesn't
matter.

If you don't sign up for Medicare at age 65 (or have other "qualified" insurance), you are fined 10%
of the payment for every year you delay. How do they collect
that fine? They take it straight out of your Social Security
payment when you do start collecting Social Security.

And, they don't take it out for the number of years you didn't
obey and sign up. They take it every month for the rest of your
life!

This is absolutely no different than requiring people to buy
insurance. Medicare is insurance. And, even though you may have
paid into Medicare since it came into existence, you will
continue to pay even more once you sign up.

So, John Roberts simply had an attack of common sense. We
already have forced buying of insurance and we already have a
penalty for not doing it. And, it's been rolling along,
uncontested, for years. The Court really had no choice.

Had they declared the mandate illegal, millions (if not
billions) of dollars in fines would have had to be refunded to
seniors! So, now we call it a “tax” and that solves the whole
problem.

Once the opinion came down, both political parties jumped on
it, trying to bend it to their own advantage. You know – if
product owners can't lie in their advertising – why is it okay
for political candidates to lie? Their facts are easily checked.

Truth in advertising should count in politics, too. The
outright lies are disgusting. I'd rather have Maybelline use
false eyelashes on their mascara models (which they do) then have
these political slimebags get away with lying.

You can clearly see those false eyelashes. The problem is,
people believe what they want to believe when it comes to
politics and the facts be damned! WHY are there no laws about
truth in politics?

Oh, that's right - it could never be put in front of The Supremes,
'cause they seem to lie at the same rate as everyone else in politics. And, they are in politics!